Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Angrboda]

This has nothing to do with the point I made about your equivocation of the term evolution and your mistaking biological evolution as being something that happens to individuals.  You can claim that I am wrong all the doo dah day and at the end of it all, you are still the one who is making a mistake.



This is just more babbling aimed at a strawman of evolution.  Again you are confusing the scientific theory of biological evolution with other types of evolution which don't necessarily apply to the species level. In short, you are using the words in an incorrect manner, and knowing or not knowing your 'system' has no effect on my ability to judge that.  The theory of biological evolution doesn't say that "survival is the thing that trigger evolution" so your saying that it does say that is pure crap.  Nobody gives a rat's ass about your theory of the evolution of consciousness.  That's a red herring you brought in because you don't understand how it differs from biological evolution.  In short, you've just made a mess filled with strawmen and other fallacies.

I don't usually give free tuition but i will make an exception for you yog. (not to be repeated   )

Bullshit. You're nothing but an endless stream of unsolicited opinions.

Your obsession with biological evolution that answer all question is absurd.
Biological evolution answer very little if you really want to know how the whole evolution system works.

It does however answer questions like "Does evolution apply to species or individuals?" which you got wrong in your previous posts.

Physical science that study evolution tell us that we inherited what we got from previous generation but where is the evidence?

Giving you evidence is like giving a thief your wallet. You'll take the cash and leave us with nothing but leather.

This science come to easy conclusion a bit like those people that in the past thought that the planet was flat.

The science of biological evolution is not remotely comparable to flat earth theory, and it don't come easy. It is the confluence of many lines of evidence from geology to fossil morphology to molecular genetics.

Unfortunately for these people the whole story is quite different.
People inherit absolutely nothing in terms of material-physical-mental qualities.
....
We are made with what our parents give us so in a way we inherited from them but here lie the trick

And so you contradict yourself. Big surprise.

If we would get all our lives for free thanks to our parents and our grandparents before that we would
get something for free but nothing in life come for free so where are we coming from then?

You just contradicted yourself again. The fact that we don't get everything for free doesn't mean we don't get some things for free; like our inheritance from our parents.

Every bit of life proceed in his journey from small consciousness to big consciousness as individuals.
As individual we fit in a jigsaw puzzle that best suit us in the good or the bad.
Our parents give us life in a way but we already had a life before that and we conquer what we got
previously so all our parents do is to allow us to continue the life we had before.
The conclusion is that we enter this life in that particular jigsaw that reflect our individuality by be born in a particular family.
That doesn't mean that we have anything to do with biological evolution which suppose to give us those
particularities that we have.
We already had these particularity long before we born in this life.
We just enter that evolutionary stage that suit us most.

This is nothing but a rambling bunch of bare assertions without evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you really insist in your dogma that biological evolution give us these particularities then prove it.
Science so far has never proved that so if you succeed in doing so i will cover you in pure 24 carat
gold.  

This is just a bold faced lie. Science has proven biological evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. That you personally are skeptical of the result is no skin off my nose.

[little_monkey]

Considering that fossils that have been unearthed for the last 200+ years by scientists from all over the planet. There are literally millions of these fossils that exist in hundreds of  institutions, museums, and universities. The remarkable thing is that there is a progression in variations from species to species - some of those species are extinct, some are not. And therefore this requires an explanation, which can be explained at the molecular level (gene drift and mutation), in terms of survival (natural selection, adaption), and with flow charts (common ancestry). Not only that but the theory of evolution is supported by:

- Biochemistry, which is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells, the biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.

- Comparative anatomy, which is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.

- Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor.

On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.

- Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.

- Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.

- Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.

[Little Rik]

Little monkey and yog.    
You guys didn't get it, did you?  
I am not saying that evolution is not real.
I am saying that it doesn't work the way you think.
From an atheist point of view you live only once so you get what your parents and previous generation give to you and that doesn't make any sense.
That is a world of total fantasy.
There is no evidence that you get something for free.
The life is an example of this.
You earn what you got.
Your problem is that you get confused because your parents give you life so you automatically think that
your particularities come from previous generation and have been achieved by biological evolution of the specie.
The gullible scholar fall easy in the trap and think along these lines excluding any other option.
Biological evolution is there but it is individual.
You inherit what you had in the previous life.
In the previous life you sort of put money in the bank.
Of course they are not money but a build up of consciousness or a devolution of consciousness and in this life  you born in a situation in which you get back what you build or destroyed in the previous life.
You just end up in that particular evolutionary stage that best suit your evolution or devolution.
Lower form of life follow mainly the instinct so devolution doesn't apply to them but for man this
apply as the free will make you responsible for your choices.
Now let me answer a question from yog.
She say.....Does evolution apply to species or individuals?" which you got wrong in your previous posts....
Evolution apply to individuals but because many individuals in many instances follow a similar path then it is easy to get confused and think that there is an evolution of the specie.
Individuals often tend to like the same thing so they develop a consciousness that lead toward the same path.
In other words rather than be an evolution of the specie it is an evolution of individuals that follow the same path and therefore appear like evolution of the specie but in reality is an evolution of different individuals that follow the same path.

The universe is huge and life in millions of other planets is a real possibility.
Not only that but it is quite possible that there are many dimensions as well so the possibility to end up in a particular place that suit our developed consciousness is unlimited.
Many scholars follow the same dogma as religious people that think that planet earth is the one where
life developed so they stick to only life on this planet.
It never came in their mind that life is everywhere and individuals end up there where it is most suitable for their development.
Gullible people can not see how individuals develop as individual and think that they inherited from somebody else.  

[Little Rik]

1.You said evidence for love can't be gathered.
#I provided evidence for love.
2.You defined love in such a way so as to neglect the evidence I provided to you for love.
#I asked you to provide examples of your definition of love.
3.You couldn't.

Whoooooo, whooooo, whooooooo.
You gone for sometime and all of a sudden you appear back with dozen of questions.  
Welcome back son.  
Now let us see about your evidence.
Where is it?
But please let me say that i said that love is individual and of abstract nature so it is not possible to pass the love that i feel to other people like it would be in the case of a piece of bread.

#I asked you whether there is consciousness in vacuum.
4.You said there is consciousness in vacuum.
#I proved mathematically that it is impossible to have anything other than nothing in nothing, i.e, vacuum.

According to yoga everything is in the mind of the cosmic consciousness.
Consciousness is everything.
Nothing is outside therefore anything that you can think of is made of consciousness.
Nothing is outside.
According to science vacuum is space void of matter.
Now space is the first element that compose the universe.
The other elements are air, light-energy, water and matter.
As space came first and before the other 4 element it was void of matter and therefore was a vacuum.
That of course was made out of God consciousness that is why i said that there is consciousness in a vacuum but of course you may well not believe in God and his consciousness that pervade everything so
is really your problem whether you believe in a vacuum made of consciousness or not.

5.You said that math is materialistic whereas consciousness isn't and hence mathematics cannot disprove consciousness.
#I reminded you that mathematics is abstract,i.e,not materialistic.
6.You didn't respond.

Also the mind is abstract but at the same time can be materialistic in nature.
Many sentiments are also abstract.
Sentiments can be materialistic in nature and at the same abstract.
Mathematics may be abstract as much as you like nevertheless it related to materialistic issues
that is why is not in the condition to deal with something as the consciousness that finality is of
a non materialistic nature.  

7.You were preaching us on how beneficial consciousness could be.
#I asked you to provide a few uses of having a higher consciousness.
8.You couldn't.

Wrong again son.
I lost the count of how many times i said that the opening of consciousness lead to human emancipation
which is the goal of life according to yoga.
(total peace of mind and endless bliss.)

Basically, you can't give us shit,well,technically you can give us shit, but that's about it.

Have a lovely day son.
Nice whether in your part of the planet?  

[Angrboda]

Biological evolution is there but it is individual.

Still wrong.

[Cyberman]

[robvalue]

"Officer, I just saw a car drive by with no number plate. That's illegal isn't it?"

"Why, yes it is. I shall investigate. Did you manage to catch the registration number?"

[Joods]

I think the word "son" is overrated.

Sorta like hearing a song on the radio that goes to shit because the radio station plays it to death.

[Jackalope]

So... 277 pages.

Did I miss any kernels of sweet corn amongst all the shit?

[little_monkey]

You inherit what you had in the previous life.
In the previous life you sort of put money in the bank.
Of course they are not money but a build up of consciousness or a devolution of consciousness and in this life  you born in a situation in which you get back what you build or destroyed in the previous life.
You just end up in that particular evolutionary stage that best suit your evolution or devolution.
Lower form of life follow mainly the instinct so devolution doesn't apply to them but for man this
apply as the free will make you responsible for your choices.

Someone said "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."